In Politics of School Reform, Transparency Doesn't Equal Accountability

We agree with the article that tranparency doees not necessarily lead to reforms, and that money alone is not the answer. And waht is promoted as tranparency may not be. Schools are opaque and state measures of performance highly subject to politically-pressured re-definitions.

In our issue area, the environmental conditions of schools (healthy vs unhealthy school environments) are well documented in the pper-reviewed literature to impact child health and learning, as well as personnel productivity. Yet pressure groups in state after state have deeply resisted reforms, even when attached to new funds. That's why schools have high lead levels in drinking water, don't report or remediate mercury spills, engage in dust and debris-causing hazardous renovations when children are in hrms's way, and paint over mold infestations-- as just a few examples. Tranparency?

Asthma is the leading cause of school absenteeism-- and not surprisingly-- a leading OCCUPATIONAL disease of teachers and custodians: they get it on the job due to poor working conditions. And kids don't?

A 2006 survey by the CDC on the environmental conditions of schools, including indoor air quality, inadvertently revealed that the state and local school officials were either misrepresenting their activites, or had little or no accurate knowledge of relevant state laws or policies. Many claimed they were in full compliance with state laws on indoor air, but in reality, those are few and far between and not enforced. Transparency?

We can't have it both ways: we should not pretend the conditions are NOT affecting kids; we should not pretend that schools are in compliance with laws that don't exist.

Transparency is a blissful fiction without on the ground accountability and environment and health enforcements that benefit those at highest risk-- the nation's 54+ million school-age children.

Claire Barnett of NY 7:50AM May 23, 2009

Many of the comments on this article are quite good and deserve consideration and, perhaps, eventual enactment in trials. Education is one of the top priorities in this country and should not be subject to political gamesmanship any more than national defense should be.

Why is it that in the United States we cannot seem to understand that those to whom we entrust our children really ought to be rewarded well? I mean teachers, of course, and I do mean WELL. The excuses for not doing a better job in educating our students are many--overcrowded and underfunded classrooms, uninvolved parents, uncommitted teachers, and so on. The excuses for not rewarding teachers well boil down to a single one--not enough money. Not enough money to pay starting teachers, say, $80.000 for a nine-month contract. Not enough money to up the ante annually by $20,000 or more based on performance. Not enough will, in short, to put our money where our mouths are. We claim to want well educated, motivated kids, but we don't want to pay the price that would guarantee that outcome. "Throwing money at the problem won't work" is the rejoinder to every suggestion that the money solution really hasn't been tried! Go figure.

I, for one, am tired of all the meddling that hasn't solved the many problems of educating our young adequately. I say let teachers, well rewarded teachers, take over the problem--from hiring to firing, from class size to teacher load, from testing of students to dress codes, etc. Let them be totally responsible for expected outcomes, and let the rest of us figure out where the money will come from.

A nation that can reward athletes extravagantly, brokers outrageously, and film stars royally can surely afford real rewarding of our teachers. It's put up or shut up time, friends.

Ron W. Smith of UT 2:37PM May 16, 2009

Apples do not fall very far from the trees that gave birth to them.....if the trees are healthy the fruit is good and if the tree is sick for some reason the fruit is not the best..we have heard endless criticism of our teachers and schools....but the responsibility of taking care of the real needs of children, physically,mentally and morally depend on their parents, their parents, and their parents.....cordially,.. If the parents just live for their own fun and games they can forget about the future of their children.....

Steve S. Roisman of CA 2:19AM May 16, 2009

The model which the US uses for public schools, which was developed in Prussia in the late 18th century is simply unsustainable. Imagine how ridiculous it would be if we had kept, say, spinning thread by hand and making the cloth for our clothes on hand looms as was done in the late 18th century. Using those production methods a good, not luxurous, suit cost about as much as an average person made in a year at that time.

Not surprisingly, it costs about $10-12,000/year to educate ONE child using our late 18th century education model. A family with three kids, which you need to have if you don't want to depend on illegal immigration for population growth as we do now, is looking at a social cost of $30-36,000 annually for their kids' education.

Obama and the Democrats are total idiots, as were Bush and the Republicans, to think that you can "fix" something that out-of-date. You don't "fix" hand looms for cloth making. You introduce a whole new technology.

You don't "fix" American public schools. You invent something entirely different.

Forrest Higgs of CA 8:52PM May 15, 2009